Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Vinay Manoranjan Pai vs Radhika Appuraya Shenoy on 9 February, 2023 cites

Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020

18. The rest of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are the judgments of this Court since I have already held that question of law framed in the first paragraph of the judgment has been squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs Neha (supra) and in particular paragraph 78 of the judgment, it is not necessary to refer to the judgments of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 139 - Cited by 1507 - I Malhotra - Full Document

Sunita Kachwaha And Ors vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 October, 2014

15. In the light of observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 77, it appears that the Apex Court was considering the case of grant of interim/permanent alimony therefore, in my opinion, the factors enumerated in paragraph 78 would equally apply to the application for interim maintenance. The principles of law laid down in paragraphs 77 and 78 constitute the ratio of the judgment and, therefore, would be binding on this Court under article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 216 - R Banumathi - Full Document

P Suresh vs S Deepa on 3 October, 2016

(2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh V. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC 8 ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 03/06/2023 17:03:32 ::: 29-wp11250-2022.edited (1).doc OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - N V Ramana - Full Document
1